home site map our company review board contact us update profile
| 
| 
| 
| 
| |
| News & Information » News » Articles » Interviews » Ask the Expert » Submissions |
| » 800.242.5183» Email Us |
| Home | Articles | Article Details |
  |
|||||||||||||||
|
5/17/2004 Can Television Help Toddlers Acquire New Words? Bernard G. Grela, Marina Krcmar & Yi-Jiun Lin | ||||||||||||||||
| Abstract This study used a fast mapping paradigm to examine a group of toddlers (15-24 months) and their ability to learn novel words. In particular, we were interested in comparing the children when novel words were presented via maximal (joint reference) and minimal learning conditions (discrepant label, adult on television, or segments from the Teletubbies). Overall, toddlers were most successful learning novel words in the maximal learning condition. Fewer children learned novel words in the minimal learning conditions. When minimal learning conditions were compared, more children learned from the adult on television, followed by discrepant labeling and the Teletubbies. A comparison by age and vocabulary level showed more older toddlers (22-24 months) learned words than younger toddlers (15-21 months) and more children with larger vocabularies learned words better than children with smaller vocabularies. This study showed; toddlers do learn the meaning of new words best when taught by an adult caregiver, and, they are least likely to learn new words presented via television programs with animated characters. Introduction Investigations of normal language development have found large variation in vocabulary acquisition rates in young children (e.g., Bloom, 1973; Nelson, 1973). Not only is variation seen between children, but also within children. Vocabulary acquisition does not occur in a linear fashion. For example, during the early stages of development, the rate of word learning is rather slow (1-2 words per month). Following these early stages there is a gradual increase in the rate of learning until most children achieve a vocabulary spurt where they learn at least ten words within a two-week period (e.g., Goldfield & Reznick, 1990; Mervis & Bertrand, 1995). The purpose of the present study was to investigate factors that may influence vocabulary acquisition in a group of young children ranging in age from 15 to 24 months. A phenomenon known as “fast mapping” has been used to describe children’s rapid acquisition of words. Fast mapping means that after limited exposure to a novel word, children hypothesize its meaning from the context within which it was heard (e.g., Carey, 1978; Carey & Bartlett, 1978; Heibeck & Markman, 1987; Wilkinson, Dube, & McIlvane, 1996). This process is believed to occur because children utilize linguistic and nonlinguistic information present when new words are uttered. It has been found that children as young as thirteen months are able to fast map (e.g., Kay Raining Bird & Chapman, 1998; Woodward, Markman & Fitzsimmons, 1994). In their study, Kay Raining Bird and Chapman reported toddlers between the age of thirteen and sixteen months were able to learn the name of novel objects following only four repetitions of that word. They concluded relatively few word repetitions were necessary for young children to develop an initial representation of a word’s meaning. One of the premises behind fast mapping is children utilize their knowledge of language to hypothesize the meaning of a word. They use the morphosyntax of the sentence, position of a word in a sentence, and understanding of lexical class to confirm or eliminate possible hypotheses about a particular word’s meaning (e.g., Gleitman, 1993; Naigles, Fowler, & Helm, 1993; Naigles & Hoff Ginsberg, 1998). Two other internal factors must be considered when examining word learning in young children. Age has a significant influence on the ability to learn new words (e.g., Bloom, 1973; Forbes & Poulin-Dubois, 1997; Nelson, 1973; Rice, 1983). In general, as children get older, they acquire words more readily. Second, children with larger vocabularies tend to learn words faster than children the same age with lower vocabulary levels (e.g., Marchman & Bates, 1991). Therefore, internal factors such as the child’s knowledge of language, age, and vocabulary level appear to play a significant role in their ability to fast map. Even though internal factors may account for children’s rapid acquisition of vocabulary, they may not be the only factors. The pragmatics, or social transactions, associated with the caregiver-child interaction are also important for word learning to occur (e.g., Jaswal & Markman, 2003; Tomasello & Farrar, 1986; Schmidt & Lawson, 2002; Wilkinson, Dube, & McIlvane, 1996). In these situations, it is the nonverbal cues provided by the caregiver accompanying the vocal gestures that are believed to contribute to word learning. For example, a caregiver may point to an object as it is labeled, or the caregiver may label an object to which the child is already attending. In order for this “joint referencing” to occur, it is important that the child is focused on a particular object as the caregiver labels it. These factors are external to the child and are thought to be essential for word learning to occur. Reports have shown that children with larger vocabularies had mothers who were likelier to use “joint referencing” when labeling an object than children with lower vocabularies (e.g., Baldwin, 1994). Caregiver-child interactions that include joint referencing can be considered maximal teaching conditions because they occur when the caregiver labels a novel object that is the focus of the child’s attention. This ensures competing information such as background noise or extraneous visual information does not interfere with the child’s focus during word learning. In these instances, the caregiver provides the child with highly salient verbal (i.e., child-directed speech), nonverbal input (i.e., pointing), and varied opportunities for the child to associate the novel word with a particular object (e.g., Golinkoff, Hirsh-Pasek, Mervis, Frawley, & Parillo, 1995; Naigles et al., 1993; Naigles & Hoff-Ginsberg, 1998). This is important for young children at the beginning stages of language development. It is thought that this pairing of verbal and visual information provides an integrated representation of the caregiver’s intended message (Langton & Bruce, 2000) allowing children to “filter out” extraneous information while focusing on relevant information. In the case of language acquisition, the object being labeled becomes the focus of attention for both the caregiver and the child. This joint-referencing helps children acquire a novel word. In contrast, minimal learning conditions occur when competing information is present at the moment an object is labeled. This may occur because the child’s attention is focused elsewhere, creating a context known as “discrepant labeling” where the child may associate the novel word with an unintended object for which a name may or may not be established already. Baldwin (1994) reported that children could learn the meaning of a novel word in discrepant labeling situations, but that this learning did not occur as well as when joint referencing was established. Another minimal learning situation occurs when pragmatic-social cues are minimal or absent. For example, when children watch television. Television is a non-interactive medium where the speaker is unaware of the listener’s behavior or attention. In addition, many of the programs targeting infants and toddlers (e.g., Teletubbies, Blues Clues, or Barney) have animated characters or puppets who do much of the talking or acting. Since these characters’ facial cues and gestures tend to be absent or different from humans, this may place the child at a disadvantage for identifying pragmatic-social cues. In addition, these programs use a multitude of features; vivid colors, music, complex background sets, and rapid transitions from one scene to another to attract and maintain the attention of infants and toddlers (Alwitt, Anderson, Lorch & Levin, 1980). Possibly, the features intended to maintain children’s attention actually serves to distract them when verbal information is presented. Competing information limits the range of language skills that can be obtained from such programs. Research suggests children as young as 24 months watch more than three hours of television daily (Nielsen Media Research, 1998). Although it has been reported that preschool children can learn a variety of behaviors from television such as letter and number recognition (Rice, Huston, Truglio, & Wright, 1990), there is still some debate regarding the effectiveness of television in teaching language to young children. For example, although preschoolers between the ages of 2 and 5 have been shown to acquire new words by watching television (Naigles & Mayeux, 2001; Rice, 1983, 1984), it appears that children do not effectively learn grammar from television (Selnow & Bettinghaus, 1982; Sachs, Bard & Johnson, 1982). Furthermore, most research has not adequately focused on the ability of children to acquire vocabulary from television during the early years of life when linguistic skills are still developing. As stated above, the purpose of the present study was to investigate factors that may influence vocabulary acquisition in a group of young children ranging in age from 15 to 24 months. We were interested to determine if toddlers would learn more nonsense words in a maximal learning condition (joint referencing) as compared to three minimal learning conditions. The three minimal learning conditions were; a discrepant labeling situation, an adult on television, and a segment of the children’s television program the Teletubbies. Finally, we interested in determining if there would be an effect for age and learning condition and an effect for vocabulary size and learning condition. Method Participants The participants were 48 typically developing toddlers ranging from 15 to 24 months (M=20.47, SD=2.78). Two children were omitted as they did not complete the experimental tasks and three were omitted as their data was not recorded. Of the remaining 43 participants, 18 were girls and 25 were boys. According to parental reports, all children had normal hearing and vision and had negative histories of medical or neuromotor difficulties. The children had various ethnic backgrounds, with English as their primary language at home. Children were recruited from local daycare centers located in Northeast Connecticut. Parents completed the Language Development Survey (LDS: Rescorla, 1989) for their child to provide information about the number of words in the children’s expressive vocabularies and the rate of word acquisition. This information was used to identify children achieving developmental milestones as expected for their age groups, and to identify and exclude those at risk for language impairment. All children appeared to be within normal limits for vocabulary development. Procedure The experimental items consisted of 20 objects. The children might have seen these objects previously, but were unlikely to know their names. The objects were placed into four groups of five objects. For each group, one object served as the “target,” to which a novel word was taught. A unique nonsense word was used to label the target objects while the other four objects in each group served as distracters. The nonsense words were consonant-vowel-consonsants (CVCs) which develop early in children’s language. The CVCs used were; sas, keeg, bem, and mope. For each participant, the nonsense words were randomly assigned to the word learning conditions that consisted of two video and two direct interaction conditions. The target objects and distracters used for each condition can be seen in Table 1. Table 1. Novel object stimuli for each condition.
The experiment was completed in a quiet testing room at the University of Connecticut. The sessions lasted 20 to 25 minutes. Before the experiment began, the experimenter (the first author) and the toddler played with age appropriate toys. The purpose of this warm-up period was to familiarize the toddler with the experimenter and the testing room. Once the child was comfortable with the experimenter, the child was seated on the parent’s lap at an adult-sized table placed in front of a 19'' color television monitor. The television monitor was at the child’s eye level, and was approximately four feet away. The experimenter sat at the table ninety degrees to the left of the child. A graduate assistant sat ninety degrees to the right of the child and across the table from the experimenter. The assistant’s role was to entertain the child between the experimental conditions and to distract the child when necessary. All experimental sessions were videotaped. The camera was placed on a tripod and was located to the right of the television. The camera was focused on the table and the child’s upper body so objects selected by the child could be recorded. Prior to initiating the experiment, parents were instructed to not assist the child by pointing or naming the objects. Before the experimental items were administered, the children completed three practice trials using familiar objects (e.g., horse, pig, car, truck). The practice trials ensured that the children understood the experimental task. The experimenter placed three objects on the table, named each item, and then asked the child to identify one of the familiar objects. Verbal praise was used as reinforcement when the child identified the correct toy. If the child did not respond, the question or command was repeated a second or third time. All forty-three children pointed to the objects named during the practice trials. Four experimental conditions were presented in random order to the children:
Each condition consisted of a teaching and testing phase. During the teaching phase, the target object was presented and labeled five times within a one-to three-minute period. A neutral sentence frame was used to label the objects (e.g., Here is a sas. See the sas.). The testing phase was administered approximately thirty seconds after the completion of the teaching phase while the child’s attention was drawn to the experimenter by saying, “Look at the toys I have.” The experimenter removed five objects (one target object and four distracters) from a box, one at a time and placed them on the table in front of the child. The child was given thirty seconds to examine and play with the objects before the experimenter asked the child to find the target object using the novel word introduced in the teaching phase (e.g., Give me the sas.). The experimenter gave the child verbal praise for pointing to, or handing, any object to the experimenter. The response was scored as correct only if the child identified the target object. If the child did not respond, the experimenter gave the child another verbal prompt. If the child did not respond after the second attempt, the experimenter scored the item as no response and administered the next experimental item. Joint Reference condition The experimenter removed five objects (note paper clip, fridge magnet, tea towel, canister, and spoon holder) from a box one at a time and placed them on the table in front of the child. The child was exposed to the objects for three minutes. The child was allowed to examine and play with the objects. Within the three-minute exposure period, the experimenter picked up the target item (note paper clip), obtained the child’s attention, and then labeled the target item using a novel word (e.g., sas). The experimenter randomly labeled the target object five times over a three-minute period. Discrepant Labeling condition The introduction of the objects and the exposure to the target was identical to the joint reference condition, with one exception. While the child examined the objects, the graduate assistant shook a toy puppy that made a noise. While the child’s attention was focused on the toy dog, the experimenter picked up the target object (whisk) and named it using a novel word (e.g., mope). The target object was labeled randomly five times during the three-minute period while the child was attending to the toy puppy. Adult on Television (ATV) condition The children were shown a one-minute video segment of an adult (the first author) playing with five objects (plant sprayer, flashlight, pot holder, candle, and spatula). The video segment consisted of the adult seated behind a table. An empty green wall was in the background. The adult removed the objects from a drawer in the table one at a time and held them for approximately two seconds before they were placed on the table in full view of the camera recording the episode. The adult picked up each object and placed it back on the table at least once. During the length of the video segment, the adult picked up the target object (plant sprayer) and named it using a novel word (e.g., doot) five times at random intervals. At the end of the video segment, the tape was stopped and a blank screen appeared on the television monitor. Teletubbie condition The children were shown a three-minute video segment of the Teletubbies television program. The video consisted of several sections from an episode of the Teletubbies program edited together. Three of the sections contained a clip where a periscope emerged from the ground. As the periscope emerged, the experimenter’s voice was dubbed into the soundtrack to provide a novel word (e.g., keeg). The novel word was used a total of five times in conjunction with the appearance of the periscope (target object). At the end of the video segment, the taped was stopped and a blank screen appeared on the monitor. This condition differed from the others in that no distracter objects (basting brush, coaster, coat hanger, picture frame) were used during the teaching phase. Reliability Inter-rater reliability was determined by having two independent observers examine the children’s responses to the experimental items. Ten toddlers’ experimental sessions were randomly selected and viewed by two undergraduate students. The students reviewed the videotapes from these experimental sessions and recorded the children’s responses to the experimenter’s request for an object using the novel words. The student’s observations were compared to those of the first author. The experimenter and the observers demonstrated 89% agreement in their judgments of which items the toddlers selected. Results The purpose of this study was to determine what factors best help young children acquire new vocabulary. The first analysis compared the children’s overall performance as a function of learning condition. In this analysis, a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the four learning conditions. Despite the use of a dichotomous dependent variable, repeated measures ANOVA is both more conservative and accounts for within subject correlations making it an appropriate analysis in this case. A significant main effect for condition was found (F(1,42)=118.36, p<.001; Eta2=.738). Planned contrasts revealed a significant difference between the maximal learning condition and all three minimal learning conditions, and also significant differences within the minimal learning conditions (a=.05). More children correctly identified the target object in the joint reference condition (M=.67, SD=.47) than either the ATV (M= .53, SD= .51), the discrepant labeling (M= .42, SD= .50), or the Teletubbies (M=.42, SD= .50) conditions. This showed that more children recognized that the novel word was associated with the target object during the maximal learning situation. However, differences within the minimal learning conditions revealed the following pattern: ATV > discrepant labeling = Teletubbies. This pattern showed that more children correctly identified the target object when the adult introduced the object on the television, followed by the discrepant labeling and Teletubbies conditions. In summary, learning from Teletubbies was similar to learning in the discrepant labeling condition, but not as well as learning from an adult speaker on television or the live joint reference condition. The second set of analyses examined word learning as a function of age and vocabulary level. To test for these findings, two separate mixed model ANOVAs using a repeated measures design were performed. An alpha level of .05 was used for all subsequent analyses. The first analysis was performed on a median split of the children’s ages which resulted in two participant groups. The groups consisted of younger toddlers (15-21 months) and older toddlers (22-24 months). There were 24 children in the younger group and 19 children in the older group. In this analysis, age served as the between subjects factor and learning condition served as the within subjects factor. Overall, there was a significant main effect for age (F(1,41)=147.82, p<.001; Eta2=.738), learning condition (F(3,39)=2.93, p<.05; Eta2=.184), and an age x condition interaction (F(3,39)=3.03, p<.05; Eta2=.189). Planned contrasts revealed that older toddlers identified the target objects more often than younger toddlers. However, there was no difference between the two groups for the ATV or the discrepant label conditions (see Figure 1). Contrasts across conditions showed that more target objects were identified in the maximal learning condition for the older toddlers only. There were no differences between the three minimal learning conditions for this group. For the younger toddlers, there were no differences between the joint reference, discrepant label, and the ATV conditions. However, there were differences between joint reference and the ATV conditions in comparison to the Teletubbies condition (joint reference = ATV > Teletubbies) for this group. In summary, the older toddlers were better at word learning than the younger toddlers. Further, older toddlers correctly identified the target object more often in the maximal learning condition. This means that the older children were better at fast mapping in general, and the condition with joint reference was better for word learning that conditions with few social-pragmatic cues. When comparisons were made within the minimal learning conditions, older toddlers learned equally as well in the three conditions. However, younger toddlers did not fast map as well in the Teletubbies condition. Figure 1. Percent of young toddlers (15-21 months) and older toddlers (22-24 months) correctly identifying the target items per word learning condition.  In addition to examining for age effects, we examined effects by vocabulary level. A median split on the number of words listed by the parents on the LDS was used. Twenty children had vocabularies of less than 50 words and twenty-three children had vocabularies of greater than 50 words. Similar to the previous analysis, we conducted a repeated measures ANOVA. In this analysis, vocabulary level (high vs. low) served as the between subjects measure and learning condition as the within subjects variable. Significant main effects for group (F(1,41)=153.50, p<.001; Eta2=.789) and for learning condition (F(3,39)=3.29, p<.05; Eta2=.073) were found. We used planned contrasts to test for differences between groups. The children with higher vocabulary levels identified more target objects than children with lower vocabularies (See Figure 2). This means that children with higher vocabulary levels were better at fast mapping than children with lower vocabularies. Separate contrasts were completed for learning condition as a function of vocabulary group. For children with higher vocabulary levels (>50 words), there were no differences between any of the conditions (maximal or minimal learning conditions). This means that these children fast mapped equally as well when social-pragmatics cues were present or minimal. In comparison, children with lower vocabularies (<50 words) identified more target objects in the maximal learning condition in comparison to the minimal learning conditions. There were no differences between any of the three minimal learning conditions. This means children with lower vocabularies were more reliant on social-pragmatic cues than children with higher vocabularies. Figure 2. Percent of toddlers with a low vocabulary (<50 words) and toddlers with a high vocabulary (>50 words) correctly identifying the target items per word learning condition.  Discussion The results of this study agree with previous work (e.g., Naigles & Mayeux, 2001; Rice, 1983, 1984) which reported preschool children (2 to 5 years) can acquire new vocabulary from television. In general, television viewing is not as powerful as the maximal teaching environments, such as joint referencing for toddlers. This supports the prediction that toddlers would fast map better when language was paired with social-pragmatic cues in the form of caregiver-child interactions. Joint referencing provides an ideal environment for word learning. Learning appears to be less successful when there is a mismatch between language and social-pragmatic cues (discrepant labeling) or when the social-pragmatic cues were minimal (ATV or Teletubbies). As the results show, it is possible to learn words in all examined situations. In addition, it appears that age and vocabulary levels contribute to learning in these situations. Older toddlers and those with higher vocabulary levels have an increased chance of acquiring new words even in minimal learning contexts. For younger toddlers and those with lower vocabularies, learning from a program without human actors was less successful (e.g., Teletubbies). Caregivers tend to label unfamiliar objects when the child’s attention is focused on that object. Also, nonverbal cues such as pointing, or placing an object in the child’s view provide young children with essential information that assist them in acquiring new vocabulary (e.g., Goldfied & Reznik, 1990; Koenig & Echols, 2003; Tomasello & Farrar, 1986). Gestures help young children filter out extraneous information and focus their attention on objects or events as they are being labeled (Schmidt & Lawson, 2002). Gestures are especially valuable for younger toddlers and for toddlers with lower vocabulary levels. Previous work has shown that during initial linguistic development, children begin with a relatively slow rate of vocabulary acquisition (e.g., Goldfied & Renick, 1996; Mervis & Bertrand, 1995). As they get older and achieve higher vocabulary levels, they appear to be less reliant on social-pragmatic cues. In comparison, minimal learning conditions provide children with the least amount of information needed to acquire new vocabulary. These conditions exist when there are discrepant, or minimal pragmatic-social, cues. Thus, children must rely on internal skills such as knowledge of language or memory to help learn words. Although it is true that children seem to learn best when both the caretaker and child are jointly focused on the referent, it has been shown that children are able to learn some vocabulary even when use of gesture is delayed or absent (e.g., Jaswal & Markman, 2003; Rice, 1983, 1984; Rice & Haight, 1986). Baldwin (1991, 1993) reported children were able to learn the meaning of a novel word when their attention was focused on a different object. However, these children did not learn the words as well as when joint reference had been obtained and overall, children were less likely to learn the nonsense word in these situations. Since television is a medium where two-way interactions are not possible, program developers must use other strategies to attract children’s attention. Previous work has shown that preschool children can learn vocabulary from television (Naigles & Mayeux, 2001; Rice, 1983). However, no studies have examined toddler’s ability to fast map from television. Our findings suggest that when age is considered television does not appear to be an efficient medium for teaching vocabulary to children younger than 24 months. When vocabulary level is taken into consideration, it appears that children with higher vocabularies (>50 words) are able to learn novel words from television. However, children with lower vocabularies do not learn as well from television. In more optimal learning situations, such as during parent-child interactions, parents may assist children by highlighting relevant information by using both joint reference and child directed speech, increasing the probability that information will be stored in long-term memory. Although toddlers may indeed enjoy watching Teletubbies, and be attentive to it, they may be unsure on what to focus. It appears that internal factors become important for word learning in the minimal learning conditions. This may be reflected in the nonlinear fashion in which words are learned. It is possible that prior to the vocabulary spurt, children do not have the language skills necessary to rapidly learn words and rely on social-pragmatic cues provided by caregivers such as joint referencing to assist in the acquisition of words (e.g., Baldwin, 1993; Koenig & Echols, 2003; Tomasello & Farrar, 1986; Schmidt & Lawson, 2002). This has been hypothesized by several researchers who have suggested that vocabulary level, and not age, is a better predictor of fast mapping abilities (e.g., Goldfield & Reznick, 1996; Heibeck & Markman, 1987; Marchman & Bates, 1991). After children have achieved some level of linguistic competence, they appear to be able to use their knowledge of language to learn words more efficiently. Therefore, children must obtain some level of linguistic sophistication before they can learn words more efficiently. In support of this notion, several researchers have suggested that children need to achieve some critical mass before they experience a vocabulary spurt (e.g., Marchman & Bates, 1991, 1994). Critical mass refers to the notion that children need a certain number of words in their mental lexicon before a rapid increase in vocabulary development is observed (Marchman & Bates, 1994). This critical number is often believed to be the child’s first fifty words. Once children have acquired this critical mass, word learning can occur in a variety of contexts. Critical mass suggests that some form of linguistic organization has taken place that may help children learn words. The results of this experiment support this notion of a critical mass because the children who had an expressive vocabulary of greater than 50 words showed evidence of equal learning in all contexts. Children in the low vocabulary group learned best in the joint reference contexts. Conclusions This study examined the ability of a group of toddlers to learn novel words in a variety of situations. Overall, children performed the fast mapping task most successfully in the joint reference condition. When comparisons were made using age and vocabulary level as separate independent variables, several different results were found. When age of the children is considered, the joint reference condition was best for the older toddlers and programs like the Teletubbies were the worst for younger toddlers. If vocabulary level is considered, children with high vocabularies can learn words in a variety of situations. Children with lower vocabularies learn best when linguistic information is paired with pragmatic-social cues. This is important information for parents who tend to use television as a learning tool for their children. It is less likely that children who are in the very beginning stages of learning language will benefit from watching television programs. In addition, it has been shown that children from low socioeconomic families spend more time watching television than middle and upper income families (e.g., Comstock, 1991). These families may assume that children are learning important language skills, such as vocabulary, by watching television. Therefore, they spend less time in direct interactions with their children, losing valuable opportunities for the children to acquire vocabulary in a more efficient manner. Although the results of the present study are intriguing, there are several limitations that must be kept in mind. First, due to difficulties in recruiting participants in the targeted age range, the sample was small. This results in two specific problems. First, there is a greater likelihood of a type II error. Second, it is unclear to what extent the present sample is representative of the general population. In fact, given that parents themselves needed to bring the child to the university to be tested, it is likely that this group of parents was particularly vigilant. In fact, it may be that fast mapping in the general population, whether from the adult or from the television, occurs somewhat later than found among the present sample. Future research should be conducted that examines both a larger and a more representative sample. Another limitation was due to the age of the participants. We thought it would be difficult for them to maintain attention over a longer testing period. Therefore, in order to avoid fatigue, we measured only one trial in each of the conditions. It is possible that multiple trials would have resulted in more valid results; however, this certainly requires testing over several days, rather than during one, extensive trial. This kind of research, although problematic in terms of retention, would be valuable. Despite these limitations, there are several interesting results with both practical and theoretical implications. First, from a practical perspective, it seems clear that during the early stages of language acquisition, toddlers learn more from an adult speaker who obtains joint attention than they do from television. Early interventionists may want to draw this information to the attention of parents who believe that television will enrich their young child’s language skills. Parents should be aware of the limited ability that these programs have in teaching their children important communication skills. It is important for parents to know that children learn language and other social skills by participating in interactive communicative contexts. These would include playing games, reading to, and talking with their children during this critical period of language development. References Allwitt, L. F., Anderson, D. R., Lorch, E. P., & Levin, S. R. (1980). Preschool children's visual attention to attributes of television. Human Communication Research, 7(1), 52-67. Baldwin, D. A., (1991). Infants’ contribution to the achievement of joint reference. Child Development, 62, 875-890. Baldwin, D. A. (1994). Infant contribution to the achievement of joint reference. In P. Bloom (Ed.), Language acquisition: Core readings (pp. 129-153). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Baldwin, D. A. (1993). Infants’ ability to consult the speaker for clues to word reference. Journal of Child Language, 20, 395-418. Bloom, L. (1973). One word at a time: The use of single-word utterances before syntax. The Hague: Mouton. Carey, S. (1978). The child as a word learner. In M. Halle & J. Bresnan (Eds.) Linguistic theory and psychological reality. MIT Press: Cambridge, MA. Carey, S., & Bartlett, E. (1978). Acquiring a single new word. Papers and Reports on Child Language Development, 15, 17-29. Case, R., Midian Kurland, D., & Goldberg, J. (1982). Operational efficiency and the growth of short-term memory span. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 33, 386-404. Comstock, G. (1991). Television and the American child. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Costa, A. R. A., Wilkinson, K. M., McIlvane, W. J., & Gracas de Souza, D. D. (2001). Emergent word-object mapping by children: Further studies using the blank comparison technique. The Psychological Record, 51, 343-355. Dickinson, D. K., & Sprague, K. E. (2002). The nature and impact of early childhood care environments on the language and early literacy development of children from low-income families. In S. B. Neuman & D. K. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 263-280). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Fisch, S. M., McCann Brown, S. K., & Cohen, D. I. (2001). Young children’s comprehension of educational television: The role of visual information and intonation. Media Psychology, 3, 365-378. Forbes, J. N., & Poulin-Dubois, D. (1997). Representational change in young children’s understanding of familiar verb meaning. Journal of Child Language, 24, 389-406. Gleitman, L. (1993). The structural sources of verb meanings. In P. Bloom (Ed.), Language acquisition: Core readings (pp. 174-221). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. Goldfield, B. A., & Reznick, J. S. (1990). Early lexical acquisition: Rate, content, and the vocabulary spurt. Journal of Child Language, 17, 171-183. Goldfield, B. A., & Reznick, J. S. (1996). Measuring the vocabulary spurt: A reply to Mervis and Bertrand. Journal of Child Language, 23, 241-246. Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Mervis, C. B., Frawley, W. B., & Parillo, M. (1995). Lexical principles can be extended to the acquisition of verbs. In M. Tomasello & W. E. Merriman (Eds.), Beyond names for things: Young children's acquisition of verbs (pp. 185-222). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Heibeck, T. H., & Markman, E. M. (1987). Word learning in children: an examination of fast mapping. Child Development, 58, 1021-1034. Jackwal, V. K., & Markman, E. M. (2003). The relative strengths of indirect and direct word learning. Developmental Psychology, 39, 745-760. Kay Raining Bird, E., & Chapman, R. S. (1998). Partial representations and phonological selectivity in the comprehension of 13- to 16-month-olds. First Language, 18, 105-127. Koenig, M. A., & Echols, C. H. (2003). Infants’ understanding of false labeling events: the referential roles of words and the speakers who use them. Cognition, 87, 179-208. Langton, S. R. H., & Bruce, V. (2000). You must see the point: Automatic processing of cues to the direction of social attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26(2), 747-757. Lee Swanson, H. (1996). Individual and age-related differences in children’s working memory. Memory and Cognition, 24, 70-82. Marchman, V. A., & Bates, E. (1991). Vocabulary size and composition as predictors of morphological development. Paper and Reports on Child Language Development, 30, 64-71. Marchman, V. A., & Bates, E. (1994). Continuity in lexical and morphological development: A test of the critical mass hypothesis. Journal of Child Language, 21, 339-366. Mervis, C. B., & Bertrand, J. (1995). Early lexical acquisition and the vocabulary spurt: A response to Goldfield & Reznick. Journal of Child Language, 22, 461-468. Naigles, L. G., Fowler, A., & Helm, A. (1993). Syntactic bootstrapping from start to finish with special reference to Down syndrome. In M. Tomasello & W. Merriman (Eds.), Beyond names for things: Young children's acquisition of verbs (pp. 299-330). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Naigles, L. G., & Hoff-Ginsberg, E. (1998). Why are some verbs learned before other verbs? Effects of input frequency and structure on children's early verb use. Journal of Child Language, 25, 95-120. Naigles, L. R. & Mayeux, L. (2001). Television as incidental language teacher. In D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer (Eds.) Handbook of children and the media (pp. 135-152). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Neilsen Media Research (1998). Television viewing in internet households. Retrieved from http://www.neilsenmedia.com Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, 38, No. 149. Rescourla, L. (1989). The language development survey: A screening tool for delayed language in toddlers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 587-599. Rice, M. (1983). The role of television in language acquisition. Developmental Review, 3, 211-224. Rice, M. (1984). The words of children's television. Journal of Broadcasting, 28(4), 445-461. Rice, M. (1990). Preschoolers' QUIL: Quick incidental learning of words. In G. Ramsden & C. Snow (Eds.), Children's language (Vol. 7, pp. 171-195). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Rice, M., & Haight, P. L. (1986). "Motherese" of Mr. Rogers: A description of the dialogue of educational television programs. Journal of Speech & Hearing Disorders, 51, 282-287. Rice, M. L., Huston, A. C., Truglio, R., & Wright, J. C. (1990). Words from Sesame Street: Learning vocabulary while viewing. Developmental Psychology, 26, 421-428. Sachs, J., Bard, B., Johnson, M. L. (1981). Language learning with restricted input: Case studies of two hearing children of deaf parents. Applied Psycholinguistics, 2, 33-54. Schmidt, C. L., & Lawson, K. R. (2002). Caregiver attention-focusing and children’s attention-sharing behaviors as predictors of later verbal IQ in very low birthweight children. Journal of Child Language, 29, 3-22. Selnow, G. W., & Bettinghaus, E. (1982). Television exposure and language development. Journal of Broadcasting, 26, 469-479. Tomasello, M. (1992). First verbs: A case study of early grammatical development. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Tomasello, M., & Farrar, M. J. (1986). Joint attention and early language. Child Language, 57, 1454-1463. Wilkinson, K. M., Dube, W. V., & McIlvane, W. J. (1996). A crossdisciplinary perspective on studies of rapid word mapping in psycholinguistics and behavioral analysis. Developmental Review, 16, 125-148. Woodward, A. L., Markman, E. M., & Fitzsimmons, C. M. (1994). Rapid word learning in 13- and 18-month-olds. Developmental Psychology, 30, 553-566. | ||||||||||||||||